438 CRITICAL NOTICES OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 



These provinces, respectively, occupy five chapters; their zoology 

 and limits are traced witli the liand of a master, and in a manner 

 which we have never yet seen equalled. 



AVe shall now proceed to remark on the English names used in this 

 volume. In referring to those of hirds fit pp. 42-3, we find " vultur, 

 L. true vultures." And we would ask, wliat else can a vultur he but a 

 true vulture } It is, of course, sufficiently plain that Swainson intends 

 by so doing, to distinguish this genus from the other groups of Vultur- 

 idae. But why not find other generic names for those ? Gijpuetus he 

 designates "bearded vultures," thus giving a specific and generic name 

 where the latter only is required. PuMor he calls ^' sheep-i/ro?." We 

 cannot too strongly censure the practice of making bird the scientific 

 name of any si)ecies. It was a very favourite practice with Wilson — 

 thus we have the crow blacki!/?rrf (Quiscalus versicolor), the bluebird 

 {Sialia Wilsonii, Swains.), the redbird ; and amongst British birds we 

 have the hhickbh'd {Merula vulgaris, Wil.), and the greenbird {Cocco- 

 thraustes chloris.) Wilson, however, was no systematist, and may, 

 therefore, be pardoned ; but for Swainson to fall into this error, is 

 perfectly inexcusable. Again, in the volume before us, we find 

 *' Anthus, B. titlark." AV']iy not i)ipit .f* nnd why not dunnock, instead 

 of the clumsy name '^ finch warbler?" We are glad to see that 

 Swainson has rejected the absurd name goatsucker, but are surprised to 

 find him adhering to the old name Caprimvlgus {auctorum.) These 

 remarks may be deemed frivolous, but every philosophic naturalist 

 will, doubtless, on consideration, admit them to be of no little im- 

 portance. 



The second part is dedicated to the consideration of the different 

 systems which have been promulgated. This division of the subject 

 is admirably treated, and we regret that our limits will not permit us 

 to make any extracts; but we will endeavour to give our readers some 

 idea of its contents. Our author has shown the difference between a 

 natural and an artificial system, with great clearness and precision. 

 He also appears to speak most impartially of all naturalists, and to 

 give each his due. How different is this from the "querulous tone" 

 in which the Introduction to Rennie's Montagu's Ornithological Dic- 

 tionary is written. In the latter Mork, we find all naturalists and all 

 systems abused. Swainson also discusses the merits of the principal 

 systems, and more especially the circular theory of the great Macleay, 

 at some length. The dichotomous system of Dr. Fleming, we agree 

 with our author in thinking totally unworthy of regard. He justly 

 remarks, that any one might make fifty other dichotomous systems, 

 all of which would be as useless as those already promulgated. In the 

 formation of a binary system, it is only necessary to fix on some one 

 character, and to have " distinct conceptions on positive and negative 

 characters." A single glance at Fleming's British Animals will show 

 the fallacy of such a system, and it is drawn up by one who is pos- 

 sessed of no mean talents. Swainson justly considers tlie classifica- 

 tion of Linnaeus, " as a whole, much more comprehensive than that of 

 Cuvier." p. 127. 



Part IV. is dedicated to "A familiar explanation of the first prin- 

 ciples of practical and scientific Zoology, with suggestions for a plan 

 of studying the details of each department." In this division, the 

 difference between a jjractical and a scientific naturalist is pointed out. 

 Our author appears to us somewhat to undervalue the former class; 

 in our opinion, both are equally useful, and both mutually assist each 

 other. Let each choose that line which best snits his inclination, and 

 let him not, because he has taken to it, despise another for studying in 



